Police provocateur: Man says 'no' to license checkpoint

Rob Schilling says he was surprised to see so many police officers on his way home, and he started filming checkpoint-objector Joe Draego.

photo by Rob Schilling

Joe Draego refused to show a police officer his driver's license at a recent checkpoint. He says he was threatened that his window would be broken if he didn't roll it all the way down and that he would be arrested.

"I asked him if I was being detained," recounts Draego of his encounter with Albemarle police on Old Brook Road off East Rio Road. "He said no. I said, can I go? He said no."

Draego estimates that after 15 to 20 minutes, he was allowed to leave. He returned with a sign: "This is how it began in Nazi Germany— police state checkpoints."

"I'll be honest," he says. "I've had enough of this. We have to stand up and say, you've gone too far."

Draego was one of 262 people stopped at the July 11 checkpoint, where 18 tickets were written, according to Albemarle police spokesperson Carter Johnson. Six police officers and one supervisor were on hand for the checkpoint that ran from 1pm to 4pm, she says. And she says the reason for the checkpoint: Nearby residents had complained about traffic safety.

Draego is not one of those residents, and he says he doesn't buy the idea that it took seven cops— the same number the ABC had on hand April 11 for an underage beer-buying sting at Harris Teeter that landed a water-buying UVA student in jail— to catch speeders. "Set up a speed trap," he suggests. "Don't put up a checkpoint that's punishing and intimidating everyone."

WINA's Rob Schilling was one of those alarmed when he pulled into his neighborhood. "It's out of character to see such a large police presence," he says. "What was the cost for this versus the benefit?"

He notes the parallels between the ABC op at Harris Teeter, where the tactics for confronting young women in a parking lot at night have become an international story. "We're already on edge in this community from the ABC operation," he says, as well as for the SWAT raid for a fake ID ring that closed most of Rugby Road in April.

Maybe there's something in the water, but Draego is not the only recent challenge to police checkpoints. Twenty-one-year-old Chris Kalbaugh's planned video of going through a July 4 DUI checkpoint in Tennessee has gone viral. Kalbaugh, too, refused to lower his window beyond a few inches. He was held by police without being officially detained while his car was searched after a drug dog allegedly "alerted"— and found nothing. Kalbaugh asserts that his constitutional rights were violated.

"You can't just randomly set up a roadblock," says Hook legal analyst David Heilberg. Police have to follow the department's policy manual and have authorization from the commonwealth's attorney, says Heilberg.

"The stop at a roadblock is a temporary detention that's the middle ground between a voluntary police/citizen encounter not covered by the Fourth Amendment and full custodial arrest," says Heilberg.

Police had no reason to arrest Draego, says the attorney. "It's not illegal for police to ask someone if they'll answer questions, but the person approached may decline to speak and go on his way," says Heilberg. "He may not be detained without reasonable, articulated suspicion."

As for the threats of arrest for not complying with a police demand, says Heilberg, "That was an empty threat; that's where they went too far." Albemarle police's Johnson confirms that Draego will not be charged for refusing to produce his license.

Opines Heilberg, "Police are in a position of authority and are used to people doing what they ask."

The Rutherford Institute's John Whitehead, author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, was out of town on July 11 when he got a call about the checkpoint. Whitehead, too, lives in a neighborhood off Old Brook Road, and he questions the use of the so-called "safety checkpoint" as going beyond the Supreme Court ruling upholding DUI checkpoints as constitutional.

"The Fourth Amendment is really clear," reminds Whitehead. "You have to have probable cause. When you can do license checks, anyone is a suspect."

Whitehead challenges the notion that speeding and safety are problems on Old Brook Road, but if they are, he offers the same suggestion as Draego: "Put up a speed trap."

For Whitehead, a more likely reason for the license checkpoint: revenue.

Draego, 60, a remodeling contractor, just feels like enough is enough, and the roadblock was the tipping point. "Whether it's constitutional or not, I do not want it," he declares. "I do not want police checkpoints in my neighborhood."

71 comments

Richard July 17th, 2013 | 2:30pm

Thank you Joe.
You're right, we have to start to push back against these tactics and this Sellers.
18 out of 262 cars...shoot, this had nothing to do with revenue, lots to do with intimidating certain complected "types."

really? July 17th, 2013 | 2:58pm

Threatening to break his window? Way to protect and serve.

Did July 17th, 2013 | 3:11pm

How about a citizens' checkpoint, stopping all police cars to see if the drivers are following federal, state and local laws plus explaining how they are in compliance with all department rules, regulations and policies. Just a thought.

Dolemite July 17th, 2013 | 3:19pm

License checkpoints are a long-established practice, and you're driving on public roads where an operator's permit is required. The ABC cluster-operation was another thing altogether; this is routine and sensible. Get over it, and stop being a pussy Joe.

are they not making enough money on the red light cameras? I wonder how may of those fines were for not having a license.

Just Curious July 17th, 2013 | 3:59pm

Good job Draego, though I can see how this would make law enforcement easier (drive-in vs patrolling), and though I'm thankful that people are charged with the protection of our peace... this is harassment.
The police, who are just doing their job, are victims to these kind of directives as well. Bad leadership decision. Plain and simple.

jimi "Machine Gunner" hendrix July 17th, 2013 | 4:04pm

What if they did this at the entrance gates of Friendship Manor? Ummm.... yeah, thats what I thought.

I just don't get it July 17th, 2013 | 4:33pm

Carter Johnson seems like such a nice lady. Why is she willing to be the pretty face behind such outright tyranny? Is there something you can't talk about to the media? What is going on here? WHAT IS GOING ON?!!

It's No Big Secret July 17th, 2013 | 7:35pm

People complain about traffic safety everywhere every day. What makes East Rio so special? Are there some particularly reckless drivers in that area? We don't want to cause any problems we just want the respect we believe we have earned. If we haven't earned it tell us why, right here, right now.

Ponce de leon July 17th, 2013 | 9:38pm

The government has too much power and there are too many lemmings. The AG for the entire country is going after a man that a Jury deemed innocent. If Zimmerman were black and Martin white and the President and the AG were white there would be marches and riots nationwide. So far nothing.
Can you imagine a direct email link from the government soliticiting evidence to go after a black person?

At least this is out in the open. I wonder if the local police use license plate tracking technology. (As I started typing I noticed that Ponce linked to an article on the same subject. I had ignored the link at first since it was to AOL of all places... my god really Ponce!?!? Skip that and go to the primary source.)

"Automatic license plate readers are the most widespread location tracking technology you’ve probably never heard of. Mounted on patrol cars or stationary objects like bridges, they snap photos of every passing car, recording their plate numbers, times, and locations. At first the captured plate data was used just to check against lists of cars law enforcement hoped to locate for various reasons (to act on arrest warrants, find stolen cars, etc.). But increasingly, all of this data is being fed into massive databases that contain the location information of many millions of innocent Americans stretching back for months or even years."http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/police...

And on the subject of "pussy" as mentioned above. This man thinks pussy is one of the the best things in the world. Why would anyone try to insult someone by calling them the best thing in the world?

Reality bites July 18th, 2013 | 5:59am

It's a little kooky, bit I sincerely wish that I had the balls (or lack of sense) to tell a cop I'm not playing his BS reindeer games at one of these checkpoints. I got stopped at one of these in Bath County and was shocked when the trooper told me that they do about one of these a week in different places to raise revenue. At least he was truthful about it.

Maria July 18th, 2013 | 6:47am

I'm sorry, I don't see what the big deal is to be asked to produce a driver's license. Two weeks after I moved here, while sitting at a red light, I was rear-ended by a motorcycle driver with no ID and no insurance. My car was totaled; my insurance company had no one to subrogate against. I would appreciate more police checking to see that we all are licensed so incidents like these are less frequent. Joe, if this is the biggest controversy you can dig up, you have a very nice life. Protest against Americans going hungry or homeless or underemployed - real misfortunes, not this nonsense. Cooperate please, so we can all get through the checkpoint as quickly as possible.

Bill Marshall July 18th, 2013 | 9:18am

Maria, it is a big deal because it represents the surrendering and erosions of your very right to exist without intererference. The Police are supposed to be there as a resource to keep the peace and their prescence is welcomed to do that, however, we have too many officers and too many laws and the overwhelming interactions with the public are with innocent people or people with very minor infractions that would in no way need to involve a gun. The Police make a big deal about their need for safety and that is fine, but there is no need for the Police to treat the public, even a speeder or someone who parks in the wrong place or rolls through a stop sign like they are evil. They broke the law, and maybe they had a good reason for it. The police are not the judge they are the enforcer and it is their reposnsibility to put you before a judge to be judged by him not them. They feel and act differently. The internet is filled with videos of cops raising thier voices at citizens because the citizen didn't react instantly to their demand and then they attack the person and practically break their arm when there was no reason why another 5 seconds could not have passed. for the person to process the request. and comply They push the laws and run the table and too many people just comply as if that is okay. It is not.

Would you feel it was okay for a cop to randonly stop and frisk you upon command because they felt like it and you were walking on the downtown mall? That already happens in New York city every day. How bad does it have to get before the citizens elect people who will protect their liberties instead of give the police more power to infringe on them in the name of protecting them. ?

buzzbomb July 18th, 2013 | 10:20am

This happened to me at a former residence in another city here in VA. There are two entrances to my old neighborhood, and at BOTH exits they were conducting a license checkpoint. Talk about a police state. On that Friday morning before work, everyone who wanted to leave the neighborhood had to have police permission to do so.

It's time for this police activity to stop. Stop generating revenue and start protecting people.

Bill Marshall July 18th, 2013 | 10:36am

Hollowboy, you just said that its okay for a cop to stop you randomnly and you have to say
"yassuh" but that if a person who was standing on his own property asks you why your there its okay for you to assault him? We are a country of laws. George Zimmerman broke no laws. The police had no authority to order him to stay in his car and George had good reason not to. He was willing to put himself in harms way to protect his and his neighbors land. There was not one single witness who came out and said Zimmerman had ever accosted anyone in the 22 other calls. You hit the nail on the head. Trayvon thought just like you that its okay to punch somebody because you don't like them asking you what business you have on the property. He is the one one who tried to get some "street justice" because he felt insulted. (if he was "afraid "he would have simply gone home in the 4 minutes George was on the phone with 911) If Zimmerman had followed and caught someone attacking Trayvon and saved his life he would be a hero.

This is not 1913 you are right, and the problem of too rude and powerful police goes double for blacks I don't undersand your thought process unless you just believe that street justice by blacks should be allowed based on what happend to Emmit Till.

Not Sick Of Hearing About Trayvon Martin July 18th, 2013 | 11:47am

Ponce de Leon, I know the Tray-Z issue is a diversion from WWIII, I also know it's an important issue, I know the jury shouldn't have been all women but they still made the right verdict, I am sad and feel for Martin's family, I don't want a racial war, but if you think nothing has happened read thishttp://www.infowars.com/brothers-murdered-over-free-zimmerman-sticker/

HollowBoy July 18th, 2013 | 12:36pm

But Trayvon Martin was on the street, he did not come into Zimmerman's home or yard. Don't make it sound like he was involved in a home invasion.He was kid walking down the street with a bag of Skittles. And got accosted and murdered by a "vigilante thug" just like the one in Grapes of Wrath who killed Preacher Casey(as told in song form by Woody Guthrie).
I have no use for things like Neighborhood Watch or gated communities in general. Give people too much opportunity to snoop, and mind other people's business.
And the whole concept of a "suspicious person" being reason to call the police needs to be discarded. Too often its based on things like appearance, race, dress, and gives license to thosewith prejudices to waste the time of law enforcement and often results in hrassment of individuals for no otehr reason than someone not liking them walking through a particular neighborhood.
Someone comes onto your private property, thats different. its trespassing. But walking down the street or sidewalk- find something better to do than peeping through your shades looking for someone to call the cops on. Its a simple MYOB.

WWIII Is Brewing And We Live In A Police State July 18th, 2013 | 1:00pm

I've said it before I'll say it again: Citizens retain the same rights to make citizens arrests that police officers do. The only wannabe cops are private citizens who do not exercise their common law police powers of arrest. Yeah, Zimmerman made a mistake (and it wasn't being out of uniform), Martin made a mistake (and it wasn't being black).

Maria July 18th, 2013 | 1:04pm

Bill M., I don't think a police officer asking me for ID is eroding my rights in any way, and I guess we just think differently about that. It does not in the least interfere with my life to stop for 10 seconds so someone can confirm I'm a licensed driver and I'm not wanted for anything. It DOES interfere with my life when someone refuses to show ID and holds up the line so I'm late to work.

I do think if someone had asked the unlicensed driver for his ID sooner than after he totaled my car, I may have saved the $7000 extra it took me to replace my car after insurance.

Stopping and frisking is different from asking someone driving a car if they have a license, and yes, I do have a different opinion on that. I've been asked for my license countless times, and because I was doing nothing worse than speeding, it's never been accompanied with a pat-down.

Bill Marshall July 18th, 2013 | 2:20pm

Maria, you might think differently if the Officer was frustrated with you not finding it as quickly as he wants and berates you or jerks you out of the car because your lipstick looked like the barrel of a gun. If you want to submit then go ahead. but that doesn't make it right anymore than walking down the street hollering "I hate " is right because free speech is protected.

Hoolowboy, Zimmerman WAS on his own property. He was in the common area of his own development and he pays his share of property taxes on the sidewalk where he was felony assaulted by an admitted racist ("creepy ass cracker") He had every right to "ask" Trayvon if he belonged there.

The reason the ghettos are so dangerous is precisely because of people with your atttude who are hypocritical in their thought process. You say people should MYOB and not look after their neighbors and you say that street justice is okay. Well that is why the Police ignore crime in the ghettos of this world and simply allow blacks to kill each other with very little investigating. If people would look out for each other then there would not be so much crime. Neighborhood watch programs have significant effects on neighborhood crime, the same as buying a dog alarm or fence. You can want your neighbors looking the other way but I am okay with them looking out for me and me lookig out for them. If that means I need to place myself in harms way on occasion then so be it. Trayvon would be alive if he had simply followed common sense of a civilized society and called 911 or continued home. Zimmerman had no intention of a gunfight that night and there is nothing that Obama, Holder, Sharpton or Jesse can say to change that.

Its too bad the fab four didn't put 1/2 that amont of energy into stopping killings in Chicago (308 black on black deaths so far this year) instead of trying to lynch Zimmerman. Does anyone doubt for a second that they would probaly been able to save at LEAST a dozen lives by focusing there efforts there?

Where this fits in with the matter at hand is that people don't trust the Police as a group, and the Police are often playing to the very limit of the law to exercise their muscle. It is as wrong as a parent who beats their child for every infraction just because corporal punishment is legal. The Council or Board of Supervisors are supposed to be looking out for the populace. This ain't it.

DD July 18th, 2013 | 2:22pm

> I don't think a police officer asking me for ID is eroding my rights in any way

By that logic, you don't mind if anyone asks you for ID for no reason or is it just police that can do that?

If you allow police to act "special" from the rest of us, then pretty soon they'll think they're entitled to their public sector jobs. Then they might feel special enough to spy on us or conduct raids on innocent teenagers who have done nothing wrong. Perhaps it might even escalate to the point that the President himself would think he has the power to kill American citizens without a trial.

That would be a less lovely world to live in if you just gave your ID to police for no reason, wouldn't it?

George July 18th, 2013 | 5:33pm

Can't the mayor of Charlottesville put an end to this nonsense?

And where was the mayor when the coed was terrorized for buying water? And where was UVa president Sullivan? At my out of state college decades ago, our president would have ripped the ATF a new one if they had done that to a female student.

A Mystical Hint From Great Tiger July 18th, 2013 | 8:15pm

When I turn white and start dodging back and forth real quick, I'm about to do my signature punches. Do not attempt to block these punches. You will surely regret it.

Angel Eyes. July 18th, 2013 | 9:13pm

Kudos to Joe Draego and I think it's a miracle that the cops didn't just jerk him out of his car, taze him, curb stomp him, then arrest him for disorderly conduct, assaulting an officer, and resisting arrest. How did he get so lucky? The world wonders.....

George July 18th, 2013 | 9:18pm

Great Tiger,

Is that your way of contributing to a serious discussion about out-of-control law enforcement in Charlottesville? Perhaps after some coed is killed by a loon with a badge and a gun you will have another snappy rejoinder?

Little Mac July 19th, 2013 | 11:13am

Perhaps after I'm killed by a loon with a badge and a gun you will speak out in my defense. I highly doubt it. (You can block them, just don't try to dodge them)

A Word To The Wise Guy July 19th, 2013 | 12:17pm

Just make sure you've got a Jersey barrier

Little Mac July 19th, 2013 | 12:20pm

(And I'm a paranoid schizophrenic)

WTH? July 19th, 2013 | 1:33pm

I find this to be a bizarre incident and discussion.

I find it to be bizarre because the heavy handed nonsense that often comes out of policing agencies is a direct extension of "tough on crime" right of center U.S. politics. Yet here it is being spun into an evil tyranny by right wingers. Be careful what you wish for.

I would also mention that scanning the news for other incidences of heavy handed policing and trying to make connections among them is not all that secure a strategy. Policing in the U.S. is not even slightly unified. It is completely fragmented. So what cops in, for instance, Iowa happen to do has no actual relation to what cops in, for instance, Albemarle County happen to do. They are completely separate agencies. That even goes for different policing forces that operate within Virginia.

If one wants to try to point a more general trend where policing agencies on the whole are getting more and more ridiculous, see my first point.

George July 19th, 2013 | 2:18pm

Policing in the US is becoming dangerously unified with the advent of "joint task forces" that always seem to include the Department of Homeland Security replete with GI Joe wanna-bees in tin helmets driving armored personnel carriers as in the most recent fake ID bust.

As for the Charlottesville cop threatening to smash a driver's window for not showing his license, isn't that one of the definitions of assault? Don't these people have any training whatsoever?

WTH? July 19th, 2013 | 2:40pm

Trust me - I know a lot of the GI Joe wannabes. They are all ardent right wingers bemoaning big gubmint.

I wouldn't overestimate the extent to which "joint task forces" and Homeland Security are involved in things like local police checkpoints. It's using apples to talk about oranges.

InnocentonGeorgetown July 20th, 2013 | 7:47am

I second the invasion of privacy these checkpoints cause. Years ago, at an evening checkpoint on Georgetown Road, when I turned into my road to return home just before the police blockade, after dark, I was pursued by 2 cops, flashing lights, assuming I was evading the check. Luckily, I was at my door and slipped inside without further harassment, But, watched them, on foot, with flashlights, looking for me. It was very gestapo-like, creepy scary.

WhoaNelly July 20th, 2013 | 4:29pm

So Maria...for you it’s all about being late for work, an imposition. But you don't have any problem with the erosion of our constitutional rights that has been ongoing for years now? We have allowed local and federal governments to pass laws and set up a system of unprecedented surveillance that could easily bring to bear and support a police state with the next national crises. The scariest thing I have ever heard our president say, and he makes allot of scary statements, is that "We need a national police force, just as strong and just as well funded as the military". Pray tell…why is that Mr. President?
Every time a government or regime has disarmed and taken total state control over their citizenry in past history, it has ended tragically. And quite frankly Maria, it was a naive attitude of citizens like you that allowed it to happen.

George July 20th, 2013 | 6:29pm

Happened again in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday. A moron smashed his way into an apartment screaming ""We are the f------ police". No knock, no warrant, no nothing. These were FEDERAL Marshals. It was the wrong apartment and they almost shot and killed the nurse who lived there. This has got to stop.

WTH? July 20th, 2013 | 10:32pm

@WhoaNelly, I'm wondering whether you're implying that this is new with the current president. There was that little thing called the Patriot Act - you know, back in '01. And it's central purpose was about expanding the power and discretion of law enforcement agencies. I'm not saying now that there needs to be some "blame game" going on. I'm just, I guess, asking whether or not you are playing one.

I'm dying to know since you seem to have no problem with law enforcement pointing guns at people and detaining them without charging them with any crime whatsoever. You seem to have no problem with these types of innocent people being locked up and tortured by medication without consent as well, sans jury trials, due process, the right to self representation or to even speak. In fact, many of your previous comments and responses to my comments seem to indicate to me that you delight in that sort of thing even when it's done in your own community, and that you delight in mocking those it is done to. Correct me if I'm wrong, and feel free to talk out both sides of your mouth and slander/defame individuals you've never met, in the process of explaining what your point is in linking to the story. I highly doubt he hung himself, but I've given you plenty of rope. Let's see what you do with it.

Big E July 21st, 2013 | 4:06am

Only commercial drivers (and those are legal terms) are required to have a license to drive(legal term).

People engaged in their own personal travels do not have to have a license.

There is no reasonable suspicion that someone engaged in personal travel does not have a license, as they are not required to have a license.
Hope this personal travel goes to the Supreme Court AGAIN one day soon.
The rulings of old get forgotten by most.

Honus Wagner July 21st, 2013 | 4:43am

Or maybe you have met me, but that doesn't mean I know you. Yet.

George July 21st, 2013 | 7:06am

Somebody (the Hook?) needs to ask the Mayor why he thinks his police force can pull off these unconstitutional searches. Maybe Charlottesville needs a new Mayor? Start a serious recall petition and you will see these police checkpoints vanish.

John July 21st, 2013 | 11:13am

DD,

I completely agree with you. Some may say, "Well hey, them stopping everyone and checking for licences, is very constitutional and called for. It's protecting us honest citizens who have a license to be on the road and are legal."

But the truth, it's very un constitutional, to ask someone to search them, to investigate them, or to detain them, by constitution you have to have probable cause. If you give the "authority" or "higher figure" the right to violate one constitutional right, then the rest of your constitutional rights will be to follow. You might as well go ahead and start taking everyones guns, taking the right to freedom of speech, and just allowing the police to walk in your house, because if their allowed to ignore your 4th amendment right, the rest of the rights are soon to follow.

Similar with a 14 year old in a Walmart incident where I'm from. The rangers are now investigating the Officers after accusing a 14 year old at Walmart of stealing, whom was not. The officers then slammed a (14 year old, which they did not have the right to detain) to the ground, while breaking his collar bone. The officer then used the kids shirt to wipe up his spit off the ground. (The kid spit when the officer accused him of stealing) Turns out after reviewing tapes, the kid stole nothing, was detained for no reason, and then furthermore had a broken collar bone. The kid is now so scared of police, that he wouldn't even go to the station to report the incident or talk to investigators. His mom had to file a complaint and let the rangers investigate it.

Two weeks before, officers illegally disarmed one of our local soldiers that had the "legal right to carry", while he was on a 5-mile camping hike with his 5-year old in the country where deadly animals are found. The officer refused to let his "Minor" child out of the car without answering questions. (Which is illegal) The officer also stated he had the badge, and used his badge as authority. Illegally disarmed, detained, and arrested a man that is fighting for our country and this officers country?

There's a point where you have to draw the line and if you let these officers violate one right, your entitled to violate all your rights.

Similarly other day, I was behind an officer in an unmarked car. I noticed him swerving, (While were in a school zone, going down a 30mpg hill, so I decided to get off to the side of him. Only to find out he was texting, swerving into multiple lanes. So it's now okay that we get a high dollar ticket for texting in a school zone, but the childs safety doesn't apply to the law enforcement who are suppose to protect and serve?

Just my thoughts.

Sam July 21st, 2013 | 12:17pm

Big E - "Only commercial drivers (and those are legal terms) are required to have a license to drive(legal term).bPeople engaged in their own personal travels do not have to have a license."

That is absolutely false. Stop spreading misinformation. You very much need a license to drive a car.

No person, except those expressly exempted in §§ 46.2-303 through 46.2-308, shall drive any motor vehicle on any highway in the Commonwealth until such person has applied for a driver's license, as provided in this article, satisfactorily passed the examination required by § 46.2-325, and obtained a driver's license, nor unless the license is valid.

Gorf July 22nd, 2013 | 10:47am

I'd say lower than average Gasbag, if you think most cops can handle themselves in hand to hand combat due to their IQ and not due to their training (and their steroid use, which is why so many are so quick to violence). I just lost more than a little respect for you. Low score on respect/credibility acquistion/retention abilities also. But at least you speak your mind.

Gorf July 22nd, 2013 | 10:50am

Oops, wrong comment thread. Score one down for the Gorfster! (But at least I caught my mistake quickly)

Gorf July 22nd, 2013 | 10:51am

And if I didn't have to use proxy servers that mistake would never have been made

Justin S July 22nd, 2013 | 2:32pm

Joe Draego you truly are a GREAT AMERICAN, Thank You for taking a rightful stand.
TO ALL C-VILLIANS:
Know your RIGHTS and prepare to FIGHT for them.
You will not have another opportunity to defend your freedom if you do not do it right now! BET ON THAT!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

G Luv July 22nd, 2013 | 6:04pm

I applaud Joe for taking a stand, but you have to admit, the state of driving out there has gotten ridiculous.

Gasbag Self Ordained Expert July 22nd, 2013 | 8:50pm

Gorf, would commenting in the wrong thread and then making up a lame excuse for it be a low IQ, average IQ, or above average IQ. :)

In the other thread, where you meant to drop your comments, I said "Back about the same time departments started looking for and hiring college degree cops is the same time they started having to hire "small" cops who couldn't handle themselves in hand to hand combat. This trend continues.

Please don't misquote me and place it I a thread where people might not even be able to recall or see what I actually said, OK?

woody July 22nd, 2013 | 10:00pm

Joe - You have my admiration and respect. If I get stopped at one of their dragnets, I hope to live up to your example. Everyone should. Enough's enough.

woody July 22nd, 2013 | 10:37pm

The only time I encountered a police license checkpoint in Virginia, it was set up on a rural road in front of a black church at 10:30 on a Sunday morning. I couldn't believe it. I complained to the sheriff's office (Rockingham) about it, and they said it was a location that had been "productive" for them in the past.

Gorfster July 22nd, 2013 | 10:56pm

Gasbag, it's discrimination, either way you cut it, and that's why I say I lost some respect for you. I didn't quote you either. Anyway, it sounds like your saying a cop is a cop is a cop. You ought to know better, people can serve as police in many different capacities, for detective work (for example) they can utilize the "small" high IQ cops, for domestic disputes (for example) they can utilize the "big" low IQ cops. What about this, if anything, do you disapprove of?

WhoaNelly July 23rd, 2013 | 8:03am

@ Jerry...really???

Gasbag Self Ordained Expert July 23rd, 2013 | 11:59am

Gorf, let me explain this one more time. Once upon a time in America there were height and weight requirements to become a law enforcement officer. While the names may or may not be familiar to you, I am speaking of cops like Terry Hawkins, Richard Martin, Bill Morrison, Howard Morris, John Pannell, Willie Davison, B. G. Mayo, Clyde Snoddy, etc... They could physically take care of themselves out on the street in hand to hand combat, they didn't have to shoot and kill people every day of the week to win a simple physical fight.

But departments nationwide dropped these height and weight requirements and started to prefer applicants with college degrees. This is the time period when we saw more and more "SMALL" cops hitting the streets. And the time period they had to resort to the tools hanging on their gun belts to win any type of hand to hand combat scenario out on the street. Sure, they were getting cops with higher IQs, but it seems these cops can't do the job nowadays without shooting and killing countless numbers of people.

Now back to what we are discussing.... I agree with the courts that a cop with a higher IQ is not a better applicant just because they might have a college degree in horticulture.

I can not make my position any clearer than I have here in 200 words or less.

Gorf July 23rd, 2013 | 12:21pm

I still respect you Gasbag, upon reflection I realized that not hiring someone (or firing someone) because they have an IQ below room temperature is discrimination also, and yet it might not be a bad policy considering what's been going on lately. It's not a perfect world, at least not yet. Let's keep moving towards that far off utopia together.

WhoaNelly July 23rd, 2013 | 12:27pm

@woody, believe this...because these are the hard facts. Young black men (who represent about 3% of the population) are ten...that's right, ten times more likely to commit a homicide in America than all White and Hispanic men combined. When the president says that people are concerned by being followed by a black man, there is a reason for it. In my humble opinion, I believe it is the result of the disintegration of the black family unit. 72% of black families are fatherless, and until that is addressed, the plight of young black men will persist.

@Nelly - My point had nothing to do with crime statistics. It was that the only way police checkpoints are legal is if they are truly random. A checkpoint in front of a black church when church is getting out introduces a racial bias to their sampling that is anything but random, and I believe that made it an illegal checkpoint. But hey, that's been the norm here in Virginia for a long time now, right?

Not Entirely Off Topic July 23rd, 2013 | 2:46pm

About this "Rant" that has caused a big hulabaloo protest: Consider the possibilities that #1: The government may be seeking to create racial division for the purpose of exploiting it to their own benefit, and #2: A small but powerful influential segment of the African American community may be seeking to create the perception of an increasing anti-black racist sentiment among non-blacks, for the purpose of exploiting it to their own benefit. In other words, the Rant may have been called in by a government agent or asset, possibly even working for the C-Ville weekly itself, it may have been called in by Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or the like, or it may have just been some ignorant racist white/hispanic/italian etc. who called it in. Don't make assumptions.

WhoaNelly July 23rd, 2013 | 2:58pm

@woody, I'm with you on that.

Checkpoints For Dogs And Cats Alike July 23rd, 2013 | 5:30pm

@woody, I'm not with you on that. But then again, I'm a human being who doesn't like being discriminated against.

Frank K July 24th, 2013 | 1:29pm

@The Schilling Show

no one wants to watch your abysmal dreck.

Frank K July 24th, 2013 | 1:31pm

@Not Entirely Off Topic

no, it was all done by ACORN and funded by Soros. guess you missed the memo

WhoaNelly July 24th, 2013 | 2:58pm

A human being...fancy that...lol

Old Brook Resident July 29th, 2013 | 10:40am

I live off of Old Brook and I can tell you that people drive way to fast on that road. This neighborhood is full of children and families who walk and jog on it everyday. Am I for speed enforcement, sure am, but this was not about enforcing the speed limit, this was clearly an intimidation tactic by local police. kudos to Joe for standing up to this misnomer of "public safety" and exposing it for what it is. I only wish i got home sooner that day so I could have joined you!